On Monday, October 10, 2005, 6:58:52 PM, Robin wrote:
RB> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> On Monday, October 10, 2005, 12:16:55 PM, Robin wrote:
>> RB> There is no standard way of referencing a RelaxNG schema from an
>> RB> instance document. The reason for this is because it's considered bad
>> RB> practice to associate tightly a document with a schema, since in fact
>> RB> depending on the situation one could want to apply different schemata
>> RB> from the one the author thought would be the best.
>>
>> Right. Some editors use processing instructions to do this. Others use a
>> table of namespaces and start elements.
RB> Yes. The RelaxNG folks did some work on defining one (because people
RB> were using it) but since they all thought it was a bad idea it didn't go
RB> very far.
And I think that is a good decision. I have become much more receptive
to the idea of using different schemata at different points in a
document lifecycle, so I think not hardcoding a schema link into a
document is a good thing.
>> RB> It is also likely that we'll be putting an RDDL (http://rddl.org/)
>> RB> document at http://www.w3.org/2000/svg that will point to the RelaxNG,
>> RB> but that may require that we wait for the TAG to come to some decision
>> RB> on it.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. The TAG, after spending a lot of time discussing it and
>> even more time trying to design a RDDL 2 that no-one seemed to want,
>> then noticed OWL as well and decided there was no one true namespace
>> document format any more. So, people who want to use RDDL 1.0 can carry
>> on doing so.
RB> Oh, good news. I'd been waiting for something in that space for about 4
RB> years so I guess at some points I just fell asleep waiting ;) I guess if
RB> it won't be decided by the TAG, we'll have to vote with our feet.
Yup.
>> Robin is correct that the svg namespace will probably contain a RDDL 1.0
>> document at some point. But the main constraint is getting time to write
>> one.
RB> No problem, I'll do it (at some point during CR). I've given myself an
RB> action to do so.
Cool, thanks.
It would need to point to the 1.1 Tiny, Basic and Full DTDs (the moduar
ones and the flat ones) as well as the 1.2 Tiny and Full RNGs.
It might as well point to Mimasa's Math+SVG+XHTML DTD as well.
--
Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org
Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG